Actually, I'm guessing...

There's your first problem.

What EXACTLY is the object or thing or noun that she WILLFULLY "concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed"?

To make a case, you have to identify at least one clear-cut object/instance.

If you find one that she she may have forgotten to CC the right reviewers, she could claim it was forgetfulness.

You'd have to show that she "forgot" often, or intentionally plotted to skip the proper CC.

I expect better details from slashdot nerds than one gets on a general political forum, where non-nerds process slogans and impressions directly to make conclusions instead of solid logic backed by reference-able details.

We were looking at going with DirectTV to get away from AT&T, because AT&T sucks rotting puss-filled maggot carcases on a good day.

There goes that plan.

McAfee.

Bull. The retention laws were vague.

I agree she exercised poor judgement in this regard, but "illegal" has yet to be established.

if one of us little people had pulled such a stunt we'd be rotting in jail

That's largely because you need the best lawyers to navigate the complicated legal process. Only the wealthy and connected can afford the best lawyers.

In general, the laws governing this appear to be vague*, potentially contradictory, written by technically clueless lawyers, and interpreted by technically clueless judges. There's a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation, and the best lawyers can leverage that wiggle room to their advantage.

If you get a cheap lawyer, like the rest of us would have to, then the other side can use that fuzzy wiggle room against our C-grade lawyer, and we end up in jail with a cellmate named "Bubba".

* I've yet to see one clear-cut law that nails Mrs. C., despite lofty claims otherwise.

Updates are often expensive and disruptive to an organization. The security expert may not care because it's "somebody else's problem". (I suppose this works both ways.)

Software often depends on multiple layers. Updating one layer often breaks another. Typical steps involve:

1. Keep an eye out for updates
2. Read up on any changes
3. Create a test stack or station to test an update in your org's environment and/or with the other layers.
4. Fix or devise work-arounds for any problems caused by the update found by the testing
5. Schedule the update deployment
6. Prepare a contingency or roll-back plan if there are problems
7. Coordinate and announce down-time during deployment
8. Test production after deployment
9. Educate users of changes
10. Answer questions and/or study new problems or user confusion over new features/behavior.

That's not only labor intensive, but if something goes wrong, managers often ask, "If ain't broke, why did you fix it?"

You can then reply that it reduces security risks to be up-to-date, but the managers or owners often view it as a concrete expenditure and disruption weighed against a fairly unlikely hypothetical, i.e. "being hacked". They are going to want solid evidence of breach probabilities to weigh against the costs of update labor & headaches, which are here-and-now costs and user disruption.

You can't just say, "updates are good for you, like broccoli". The suits often see it as make-work job security games. Better and presentable evidence is needed.

We don't have to have 2-way communication to know if there is intelligent life there. If we receive their TV signals, for example, we'll know, even though we cannot reply in our life-time. (I hope they don't have Kardashians also.....hmm, maybe the Kardashians are from there.)

And, we may be able to pick up the spectrum of life-related chemicals from here if we get powerful/big enough telescopes. But, we wouldn't know much about the nature of the animals (or equiv.) from that alone.

around 80+ people required to start a colony...

The existing evidence is only of DNA signatures; it says nothing about settlements or being first. A lone person who arrives into an existing population can spread their DNA that way.

Enough stories about the Republican candidates already.

It must have been fairly common that fishermen/fisherwomen in small boats occasionally got lost or caught in a storm, and eventually ended up in the Americas. They could keep themselves alive for such a long journey by fishing and capturing rain, with a little luck.

Those who settled in Australia were probably relatively skilled at boating already, or else they wouldn't have ended up in Australia. Thus, it could be the same group & niche at work in both continents.

The first H1B

The ad: "Wanted: fisherman, brewer, chicken farmer, corn farmer, weaver, arrow-point maker, haruspicist, spail chekker, and juggler. C++ a plus (no pun intended). Must not have a family to distract you, can work long hours without complaining, and at 20% below prevailing wages. And won't rat-fink on us to the local labor board."

In the old days we used Ruby Off Rails.

That's just your boss giving you busy-work to keep you from screwing up the database side.

One of the servers was on wheels. Wheels

You lucky devil; we had to push our stone servers ourselves across the ground.